• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Apple has suspended work on the second-generation Vision Pro headset to singularly focus on a cheaper model

    That seems very reasonable and like what they probably should’ve been doing all along.

  • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Note that suspends != cancelled and it’s just the “Pro”, with a cheaper model allegedly in the works.

    We’ll see where a cheaper model lands in terms of price, but it’s very clear now that $3500+ isn’t really the price range where most people buy something out of curiosity. Because let’s face it: the Vision (Pro) still lacks a “killer app” for the masses.

    • wootz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s the important bit that everybody is missing:

      Apple has suspended work on the second-generation Vision Pro headset to singularly focus on a cheaper model

      Clicking through to the paywalled article, the headlines reads as follows:

      Apple Suspends Work on Next Vision Pro, Focused on Releasing Cheaper Model in Late 2025.

      I am as unoptimistic on the future of VR as everybody else here, but can we please leave the nuance in? Apple are not turning the key on VR, at least not yet, they are simply doing the predicable thing that everybody said their would: Release a VR headset that isn’t targeted at developers only.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      My impression of the Vision Pro was that it was built and priced for developers to buy and expense and then build VR apps with it. That way when the consumer version comes out there’s stuff in the app store.

  • M500@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Companies have been pushing VR so long now. I’ll say that I think the tech is cool and the idea is cool, but I will literally never use them.

    I can’t wear them while working as I am in meetings 99% of the time.

    I would not wear them in my free time, as I do not want to disassociate from my wife and cats.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I love VR. So I use it for gaming maybe once a week, for 1-2 hours, usually as an activity with my SO so we can switch who’s playing each “round” depending on the game. That’s the maximum I find fun instead of tiring. I can’t see using it for long periods or for work, that sounds like a nightmare.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is just a price to function issue.

      If the price was 0 everyone would have one.

      But the cost of it is way too high for what it is. Price and weight etc will come down. Uses will increase.

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Have one != Use one. I own two and stopped using them ages ago. All of them are too clunky and I realized I’m generally too lazy to want to interact with stuff in VR vs my more comfortable media consumption on a TV and a couch.

        Maybe if they were super lightweight and I could legitimately do real exercise with them they’d be useful, but as is they’re too hot, too uncomfortable and too limited.

    • Starkstruck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s absolutely phenomenal for gaming or vr “experiences” (basically movies made specifically for vr). But the corpos are really hellbent on making everyone use it for meetings for some fucking reason. Which is truly the lamest, most unnecessary use of this tech.

    • kureta@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would only use VR in racing, flight sim, or space sim games. probably once a couple of months after the initial excitement.

      • M500@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s a good point. I’d have loved this for elite dangerous.

    • daddy32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Aren’t the meetings pushed as one of the basic function of these? But I guess it only makes sense if most of the participants use them and software has the support.

      • M500@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        If most people have them? Ok, I’ll tell all my clients to get a pair 😂

      • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        yeah the software they developed only works between Vision owners… perfect for meetings between all your millionaire friends I guess

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I have found my headset useful for work, when working from home and I don’t do camera on meetings anyway.

      At home it’s pretty nice, and since my ears are open I can actually talk, so my wife actually prefers it over me wearing headphones. But all things in moderation, I wouldn’t wear it constantly.

      Despite being a huge fan of the concept, I still couldn’t go for Apple’s headset, it’s heavy, it’s expensive, and lack of controllers are all deal breakers. The Quest 3 is lighter, has good controllers, and is more affordable. It may not have the displays as nice as Vision, but that doesn’t make up for the rest of the stuff.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The current iterations have far more potential than the past.

      But the hardware is stil too power inefficiënt and the display pixel density is expensive to produce.

  • riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Bro, just one more year. Let them come up with just another pair of goggles bro, trust me bro, one more year and we will be in VR future bro.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m still waiting for:

      • good Linux support, including apps/games
      • not too expensive - $500-ish
      • relatively privacy-friendly, so anything Meta is out

      Valve Index is close, but it’s expensive and Linux content is very limited. Bigscreen VR Headsets looks interesting since it seems more comfortable than Index, just as privacy-friendly, and should work on Linux, but it’s still a little expensive ($1k) and there aren’t many Linux VR apps AFAIK. I might get it though, still deciding.

    • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Quest 3 adoption is super high compared to where quest 1 or 2 were at years ago, the apple vision pro wasn’t meant to create mass adoption anyway, not at that price point.

  • kratoz29@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I watched a YouTuber telling something like:

    “I cannot believe Apple’s biggest premium VR tech wants to change the world… And they are advertising it with… Fucking spreadsheets”

    I am paraphrasing ofc, but the meaning was that this could have been a pretty good toy for everyone, but they are trying to sell it as a work-buddy thingy, yeah seeing those spreadsheets focus was kinda dystopian (like in Ready Player One where they are caged doing work or something hah), watching movies in crazy sites yeah, that was what would have sell it more for me, and other ppl, if it wasn’t crazily expensive.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is this the virtual boy of Apple? A product that never really made no sense to anybody and was never really supported?

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      I was hoping they’d get the price down to something sane. It looks like it could be a cool tool for CAD. Of course there won’t be any input available from a non-Apple computer so I still wouldn’t want one.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        I desperately want a virtual desktop environment for plain ass computing. Give me infinite windows for my spreadsheet and IDE and that’s all I need!

          • danc4498@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’ve heard the quest 3 is awesome and does almost everything the Vision does. Not sure I can justify the price to myself yet.

            • nutsack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              i am using a quest 2 for productivity and ebooks but the resolution is so low that my desktops need to be 1280x720 or I can’t read them. it will be nice to upgrade when i get the chance.

              • danc4498@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                I’ve heard the resolution is good enough to watch movies on too. Not sure if that is true, but that would be a selling point for me.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Without a Meta account tho? I’ve got hard blockers on price or shenanigans (or both) for every headset I know of.

            • Klear@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Not sure what having an account has to do with anything. I get the objection on the grounds of Meta being a shit company and it’s perfectly reasonable, but having to make an account specifically for the device (and possibly nothing else - you don’t have to link it to facebook or anything) doesn’t magically give them any more power over you.

      • HyperMegaNet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        In the article it says they’re cancelling the “pro” version to focus on producing a cheaper version. So it sounds like you might get what you want, although “cheaper” will still likely be very expensive, and your point about compatibility with non-Apple devices still holds.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          No.

          At 770,000 sold, it is Nintendo’s lowest-selling standalone console and the only one to have less than one million units sold, seconded by the Wii U’s 13.6 million units.

          The Wii U was seen as a complete and utter sales flop. The Wii U outsold the VirtualBoy 18:1.

  • sudo42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why does this feel like another “voice assistant” that we’re supposed to talk to all day?

    If we worked from home, maaaayyybe voice control could be a thing once it’s 100%? But Boss Man wants us back at work. Are we really going to be a open-office with everyone talking to their computer like some sort of crypto bro boiler room?

    It’s sorta like the “video phone” that everyone was dying to have for decades. We finally got it and everyone went “meh”. A few grandparents use it to talk to their grandkids. Hell, most of the current generations don’t even use phones anymore.

    It’s one more technology that’s being pushed out before it’s baked and will likely be only really useful in niche applications. Really fucking good for those niche applications, but just too expensive and awkward for anyone else.

      • sudo42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, FaceTime. But how often do people use it in practice?

        Good point about Zoom. Business clearly like Zoom for meetings, but big business is still hammering BTO hard. Will Zoom be marginalized when they finally force in-person meetings?

        Also, the last few companies I worked for that did Zoom meetings, everyone kept their cameras off.

        • Reyali@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          There are some demographics where its usage is extremely common. I’ve come across multiple people who are on FaceTime calls while in public. Just walking around on video and speaker, talking to someone else. I can’t conceive of using it this way, but in some social circles it’s totally normalized.

          This page has some interesting quotes. Reading through, it sounds like it’s hovering at or below the top 5 most common video chat tools. There’s a lot of bias towards quotes about 2020 usage so that’s obviously skewed, but that year at least 9-25% of various demographics were cited using FaceTime daily.

          I use FaceTime 2-3 times a year to talk to my nephew, and maybe 3-5 times a year to screen share or show my mum things. But I do use Teams video calls literally 5 days a week (I try to avoid the video part when I can, but there are a few in leadership who really push for it. My company is never doing RTO, so I’ll accept a bit of video calling for the sake of permanent WFH!).

        • SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          My kid and his friends use FaceTime instead of calling and will often be on it for hours while gaming. It’s much easier than a call for 3+ people. We are in the US but I imagine they use whatsapp or whatever the same way other places.

          I work for a smaller org (less than 50 ppl) and we are generally required to have cameras on in meetings.

        • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s not every day for everyone, but I used video calling every day to talk to my foreign spouse, and to talk to my little brothers when I was overseas. It’s pretty amazing overall.

  • kevincox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t know why everyone is so negative. The gameplan seems pretty clear to me.

    1. Make expensive fancy product. This is effectively a “devkit” that companies can use to start experimenting with AR software.
    2. Make lower cost product. There are now a few decent apps available and early adopters will be willing to buy it to be one the leading edge.
    3. Now there is a bigger market, leading more companies to be willing to develop apps.

    Apple is hoping that this is enough to break the chicken-and-egg cycle. Enough to get a few powerful apps such that more regular consumers will be willing to buy which again increases the addressable market which makes it more attractive to companies.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yep that’s exactly why they had started the 2 then changed their mind lol. Alllll part of the plan

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Basically sounds like the Tesla game plan, which was super effective: roadster (which is purely a toy for the rich) and a little later the Model S (practical EV), and then introduce an affordable model.

      This implies that eventually people will strap rusty boxes to their head though, so grain of salt with the analogy…

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      They did something similar with Apple Watch and Apple TV and Home Pod and jt worked out well enough for them.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Apple should make a virtual headset you can buy in META, then put it on when you are already in a VR setting, except now you can use Apple services with it!

    That way it would have zero production cost, be absolutely as useless as it already is, and can be just as overpriced.

    It seems like the perfect Apple scheme.

    • motor_spirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      If you can continue with vapid schemes that ensure endless shareholder value I’ll follow you anywhere senpaisano

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m not sure why they tried this.

    ‘We made a VR games headset, but replaced the games with office related programs, like calenders and notepads’

    Did any of them ever use an Oculus Quest? Like, why did they try this? Is this Apple’s Google Glass moment? Did they really think that if you pay enough youtubers to wear it in public, normal people would magically go into car-level debt to emulate them?

    In fact, I’ll go as far as to say this campaign and price point was a bigger mistake, and a louder failure than Google Glasses.

    • atocci@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t know how far things have come since the aptly named Acer AH101-D8EY, but that was the last time I tried to be “productive” in VR and it was absolutely not working.

  • Cossty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only thing I could see myself using it for, is being in bed and watching a movie. I can do that with ar glasses for 300$.

    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      you can get a giant 4K TV for $500 (1/7 the Vision price)

      basically one TV for every room in your house

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    The price immediately put this product into the grave. They should take out all the useless features like the eye passthrough, or the bizarre face scanning, if it’ll only ever be used for calls. If this were to be used in a gaming scenario, sort of like what the PSVR2 does, that’d be a whole different conversation

  • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    If they can’t get the headset to fit the size and weight of swimming goggles, I don’t think it can get mass adoption

  • 555@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    The front screen is what no one wants in a cheaper version. Don’t cut back on sound and cameras ffs